Standing Committee C

[Mr. Roger Gale in the Chair]

Marine Wildlife Conservation Bill

Roger Gale: I call Mr. Randall to move the sittings motion.

John Randall: Not moved.

Roger Gale: For the benefit of the Committee, I should explain that we hope to complete our proceedings this morning. The Minister is unfortunately not available next Wednesday, so there is no point in moving a motion that we should sit then. If circumstances prevail against us, the Chairman will make a decision on what to do at the end of this morning's sitting; and Members will be informed of it as quickly as possible. Clause 1 Marine sites of special interest

Clause 1 - Marine sites of special interest

Simon Thomas: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 1, line 18, leave out `one month' and insert `three months'.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 10, in page 2, line 10, leave out `six' and insert `three'.

Simon Thomas: I seek to make a small improvement to the Bill, and I hope that the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), the Bill's promoter, will accept it. The Bill's wording follows the procedure for dealing with sites of special scientific interest—that is land sites in England and Wales—under which interested parties have one month to make representations and the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales has up to six months to make a designation. I want to change that to three months for the consultation and for the decision-making process.
 I seek to make those changes in response to concerns raised on Second Reading—for example, the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) suggested that the consultation period was too short. The suggested change is also based on my experience. Two or three years ago, before my election to the House, I was involved in consultation on the candidate marine site of special interest at Penllyn ar Sarnau in north Wales; I was working with the Countryside Council for Wales in putting together the public consultation exercise for that site. My experience is that a month is not sufficient, and I therefore seek three months' consultation.

Lawrie Quinn: I am pleased to serve again under your chairmanship, Mr. Gale—although I hope that this Committee stage does not last as long as the Committee stage of the Transport Bill last year. That was so memorable that medals should have been handed out.
 The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) mentioned his experience of marine environments. The part of the country that I represent has many fishing interests, and I wonder whether the amendment will afford them enough time, bearing in mind the concerns of the fishing industry. Fishermen work strange hours and have difficulty in getting to meetings. Even three months might not be sufficient time to allow those stakeholders to play an important part in the consultation.

Simon Thomas: I was involved in consultation with a group of fishermen in Pwllheli off the north Wales coast, and that process took some three to four months. The process should not drag on too long, but the legislative framework should allow more than a month. I believe that three months is a reasonable period for interested parties to make their views known; and three months is long enough also for the designation decision to be made by the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales. As the hon. Gentleman suggested, it is important that fishermen and other interests looking to use the marine environment should know whether or not a designation has been made; and flowing from that whether a management plan has been put in place.
 It is important that there should be consultation, and three months is a reasonable period. It is also important that stakeholders are involved throughout in putting together the management plan. It is reasonable to allow three months in the context of designation, and the amendment represents a significant improvement on the Bill. It is important to involve stakeholders all the way down the line. The Bill makes no provision for that, but it will be taken into account in the work of the Countryside Council for Wales, English Nature and the Secretary of State. I hope that the Secretary of State will bear the hon. Gentleman's comments in mind if the Bill gets a fair wind and becomes law.

Sydney Chapman: I thank the hon. Member for Ceredigion for praying in aid the point that I made on Second Reading. As I said at the time, it is a matter for consideration in Committee.
 The Bill's provisions mirror those in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which the Minister will probably cite as a precedent for the one-month and six-month periods. I agree with the hon. Member for Ceredigion, however, that public consultation should be longer than one month. Those involved with planning issues usually have a few months to consider whether to appeal. There is, therefore, a precedent. The Secretary of State and the Welsh Assembly—to take the hon. Gentleman's principality—should need no more than three months to reach a decision. I fully support the hon. Gentleman.

Michael Meacher: I am pleased that we have reached the Committee stage of the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall). I congratulated him when he secured a Second Reading. I hope that our discussion will be constructive and that we shall complete it this morning.
 The Government are committed to improving nature conservation in the marine environment. It is vital to protect marine ecosystems, given that an estimated 50 per cent. of United Kingdom biodiversity is in the sea. We are sympathetic to the aims and objectives of the Bill. As I said on Second Reading, we want to tackle the concerns that we have about all the clauses, particularly the early ones. 
 Legislating for the marine environment is complex. We are concerned that legislation to protect it should take proper account of other legitimate interests and uses of the sea. Several of the amendments are designed to do exactly that. I want the detailed wording of the Bill to be scrutinised to ensure that it achieves the desired objectives, and we shall table amendments to that effect on Report. I look forward to working with the Committee to achieve those objectives and to secure the overall aim of promoting marine sites of national importance. 
 Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 deal with the notification procedures for marine sites of special interest. Such sites should benefit from our experience of notification procedures for terrestrial sites of special scientific interest, as the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet correctly suggested. Where appropriate, those procedures should be consistent with each other. 
 Amendment No. 9 would bring the period in which interested parties could comment on the notification in line with that for SSSIs on land, which is fine. Amendment No. 10 would, however, have the opposite effect and would reduce the time available to the Secretary of State to confirm a notification. It is imperative that the Secretary of State in England and the National Assembly for Wales have adequate time to take into account the representations of all those who comment on the designation. The proposed reduction for such consideration to three months would make proper consideration impossible. I am sure that the hon. Member for Ceredigion is seeking the quickest way to ensure that site notifications are confirmed. That is desirable, and I share his aim. However, proper account must be taken of the views of all those affected by designation, and the Secretary of State might not be able to carry out that consideration in three months.

Simon Thomas: The Minister just said that proper consideration needed to be taken of all views that were received. Does he accept that proper consideration needs to be given to the interested parties who are awaiting determination of, for example, an application for a wind farm or for oil exploration? All such applications involve a great deal of economic and environmental interests, and in the Minister's scenario they might have to wait for six months. That could be too long for them. How can he give assurances that the decision-making process will not become overlong or overlaborious either in his office or in the National Assembly, which I accept that he cannot control?

Michael Meacher: I recognise—it is the burden of much that I am going to say this morning—that other interests are concerned about the provisions of the Bill and the designation of marine sites of special interest, and of course it is in their interests as well as in those of the conservation agencies to ensure that matters are resolved as quickly as possible. Conservation agencies have nine months to confirm notification of sites of special scientific interest on land. Whether it is six or nine, that is considerably more than three months. Hon. Members might think that three months is adequate to ensure that matters are properly considered; I believe that it is too short.
 I take account of what the hon. Member for Ceredigion has said. We shall look at it. I do not wish to extend the period unnecessarily, but I want to ensure that all interests have proper time to make representations and that no one can say afterwards that they were prevented from making their views known because the time was cut short. 
 I undertake to table an amendment that will allow for a reasonable consultation period and will achieve consistency between the lengths of the consultation periods for marine and terrestrial site notification. I am not committing myself to nine months, but I think that it is reasonable to be consistent. With that assurance, I hope that the hon. Member for Ceredigion will be willing to withdraw the amendment.

John Randall: It is a delight to serve on a Committee under your chairmanship, Mr. Gale. I should like to thank the members of the Committee for volunteering to sit on it. It is not always the case that genuine volunteers are found in this place, and I am very grateful. I am also extremely grateful to the Minister and his Department for the critical but concrete encouragement and help that I have received from them. I was delighted on Second Reading to see such a positive attitude to the Bill and to its coming into Committee.
 I always listen carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet because he has a great deal of experience in a wide variety of matters, and I understand the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Ceredigion. I accept the good faith of the Minister. I want decisions to be made in the appropriate time; they should not be overlong. Yesterday we had an example of a decision—that about Heathrow terminal 5—that many thought had taken a little on the long side. I hope that it will be possible to re-examine the matter when the Bill is discussed on Report, so I urge the hon. Member for Ceredigion to withdraw the amendment, bearing in mind the assurances that the Minister has given.

Simon Thomas: In the light of what the Minister has said, it is important that we see what happens on Report, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

John Randall: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 24, leave out
`an area of marine biodiversity interest' 
and insert 
`a marine site of special interest'. 
The amendment is straightforward and technical, and would correct a drafting error. Areas of ``marine biodiversity interest'' were referred to in the consultation on the draft Bill, but the term was changed in response to comments made during that consultation period. The Bill should refer to marine sites ``of special interest'', so the amendment merely changes the wording.

Michael Meacher: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his perceptiveness. I thank him for the amendment, which would correct an anomaly in the Bill about the description of sites. I will table amendments at a later stage to ensure that the clause is suitably drafted. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

John Randall: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Randall: I do not propose to speak on every clause, but clause 1 is the meat of the Bill.
 The Bill would allow for the notification of marine sites of special interest, which would be nationally important wildlife sites in the marine environment around England and Wales. The Bill would give English Nature or the Countryside Council for Wales a duty to provide notification if they thought that a site should qualify, and if it lay outside any area already protected by a European designation. 
 English Nature and the CCW must have a duty rather than simply a power, as a duty would make it more likely that action would be taken. If the duty were downgraded to a power, and if several of a body's activities were in competition for its time and resources, those that were required to be done would be at the top of the list and those that were optional would lose out. A duty would also be better than a power because it would allow the body on which the duty was imposed to campaign more effectively for the financial resources needed to meet it. 
 The duty to notify the relevant authorities would arise only when English Nature or the CCW thought a site important. It would apply only to areas that lay outside current European marine sites, which are marine special protection areas and marine special areas of conservation. As the Minister said, the aspect of marine conservation under discussion is rather complex and has many designations. 
 English Nature and the CCW would be given discretionary powers to provide notification about sites that fell within such European marine sites, but there would be no duty for them to do so. That would mean that the double badging of sites—their designation as being of both national and European importance—which is often required on land would not be a requirement for the marine environment. Although the Bill would not require double badging, it is still important for it to allow notification about MSSIs within European marine sites. That would mean that adequate protection could be given to nationally important wildlife interests that lay within an internationally important site that was not designated for that interest. 
 English Nature or the CCW could decide that an area should be designated as an MSSI and notify their view to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs or the National Assembly for Wales. However, the final word on designation would rest with the Secretary of State or the National Assembly. That would give them a power that they do not have in relation to notification of sites of special scientific interest on land, but we feel that it is important in the marine environment.

Nick Palmer: As other hon. Members have done, Mr. Gale, I welcome you to the Chair.
 I want to probe further the distinction between paragraphs (a) and (b) of clause 1(1). As the hon. Member for Uxbridge has already made clear, paragraph (b), which relates to sites where there is no existing protection, would involve a duty to notify the relevant bodies, while paragraph (a) would involve merely an option, so that English Nature and other bodies would be able to establish additional protection if they so wished. 
 I am a little puzzled by the distinction. Either it is felt that, as the hon. Gentleman has said, English Nature might not get round to designating an appropriate site as quickly as one would wish, and that therefore a duty is appropriate; or we trust English Nature to get on with it. If the duty is considered necessary, I can imagine circumstances in which it would also apply with respect to double badging. 
 The reason for the extra designation under paragraph (a) is, I assume, that if the broader protection were lifted, the site could suddenly become unprotected. If we feel that we need to reinforce English Nature's abilities by means of a duty, should we not also do so with respect to sites that are already protected by a more general designation? Conversely, if we feel that it can be trusted to act as quickly as is necessary, would not the word ``may'', rather than ``shall'' be sufficient in paragraph (b)?

Andrew George: It is my pleasure to welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Gale, and to congratulate the hon. Member for Uxbridge on presenting this important Bill. I have secured an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall later this morning and if I must leave prior to consideration of the minor amendment that I have tabled, I apologise.
 Will the Minister bear in mind, in preparing amendments in response to those tabled by Committee members, that increasingly fishermen and marine environmentalists have a shared agenda? That was not the case 10 years ago, but it is increasingly so now. I think that the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) recognised that in his remarks. Although the clause does not specify proactive methods of consultation that would engage the fishing industry, such as the hon. Member for Ceredigion mentioned, the Minister's amendments should recognise the need to bring the fishing industry along in the process, rather than allowing it to find out about developments too late. That would be a welcome and constructive approach. 
 My experience of sea fisheries committees' work on important byelaws is that fishing industry representatives are often bypassed in the process of preparing those measures. That results in unnecessary potential conflict. We should learn the lesson so that in future the fishing industry will be properly consulted about relevant measures.

Simon Thomas: I want to add to the hon. Gentleman's remarks, using the example of the experience that I mentioned in response to the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby. Our work with the Countryside Council for Wales was, I think, a first. It was based on the sort of consultation methods that he was talking about, including adapting the planning for real initiative and meeting at a time when fishermen were available. We did away with the usual paperwork and worked in an interactive way with a range of stakeholders. We brought fishermen into the same room as environmentalists to find those common concerns that he mentioned. I am sure that the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) would want to commend that approach to the Minister and to the National Assembly.

Andrew George: I welcome that intervention. I hope that the Minister recognises that, beyond the proposed technical redrafting in terms of periods for consultation and notification, there are important considerations that could be included, such as the method by which the consultation process is to be carried out. In drafting the new amendments, will the Minister bear in mind the fact that sea fisheries committees have significant responsibilities, but their work is not sufficiently recognised in the Bill? Will he also consider the appropriateness of referring to relevant statutory bodies, as well as to the fishing industry in general, as appropriate consultees to be engaged in a proactive way?

Lawrie Quinn: I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Gale, and congratulate the hon. Member for Uxbridge on securing time for this important Bill. It is a pleasure to follow my fisheries colleague, the hon. Member for St. Ives.
 I want to emphasise a few points that concern the fishing community in Scarborough and Whitby, and talk about those towns as trading ports. Scarborough and Whitby are well known as fisheries ports, but they also conduct some trade. If we do not get the legislation right, it could have a negative impact on potential development of that trade, particularly in the case of Whitby. 
 First, let me deal with the fishing industry's concerns. I understand that the hon. Member for Uxbridge recently met representatives of the Association of Sea Fisheries Committees. My constituent, Mr. Russell Bradley, the solicitor and chief executive of that committee, said that although there had been progress, he felt that the hon. Member for Uxbridge and his advisers did not appreciate the sensitivities of fisheries communities. Our industry has suffered badly from change and the points made by the hon. Member for St. Ives are pertinent to that. There has been a period of great change and pressure. 
 For fishermen, there are constraints of time and representation in any dialogue or discussion on important issues of conservation, but the fishermen of Whitby and Scarborough are very much behind such issues. They want to be regarded as stakeholders and full participants in the debate. Their livelihoods and futures are at stake, and the future of key communities in coastal ports around the country could be affected, especially in the case of the shellfish industry. 
 In preparing for Report stage, will the Minister emphasise the need for the provisions to be properly resourced? Some account must be taken of the financial constraints in which fishermen find themselves, and it is costly to respond to consultations effectively and properly. Will the Minister and his officials proceed correctly and give regard to the cost implications for an industry that is financially hard pressed? That will involve good-quality research and work with some of the key marine institutions around the coast, of which the University of Hull is a prime example. Much effective work is done on its campus in Scarborough. 
 When I first stood as a parliamentary candidate, I organised a meeting between marine scientists and fishermen in Scarborough. It was the first time that the two warring factions had sat down in a room together and had a dialogue. To begin with, the dialogue was a bit frosty, because the fishermen were of the opinion that they worked on the sea and that the marine biologists were too shore-based. However, that initial dialogue has paid dividends for the situation locally in Scarborough, and the gains have been replicated around the coastline. National fishermen's organisations now work closely with organisations such as the World Wildlife Fund to draw up joint strategies. If he has not done so already, I urge the Minister to pay attention to the work on conservation done by the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations and the World Wildlife Fund, because it involves the livelihood and future of our coastal communities. 
 When the Government promoted the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill—which became the so-called CROW Act—they recognised that the countryside had special needs and problems. The review group established with that in mind involved representatives of the major stakeholders, such as Government agencies and non-governmental organisations, including the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. As a member of the RSPB, I would like to express my delight at the work that it has done in the Bempton cliffs area of the North Yorkshire coast, which is a superb example of what that organisation does. The fishing and ports industries were also involved. 
 The dialogue in the Committee of that Bill was based on regular contact, breaking down some of the suspicions and concerns of the key stakeholders about the mythical tendency of conservationists to think more about birds than about people. That was the place from which we started a decade ago. The development of a partnership approach, and the importance of stakeholding, was hard won and I am pleased that the Minister and the Government have done so much to develop policy for the coastal zone. 
 The interim report is helpful. It establishes the fact that the management of the coastal zone is complex, that jurisdiction is far from clear and that present arrangements do not work—hence today's debate. The report proposes that care be taken before proceeding too fast because, to quote an old saying, we do not want to throw the baby out with the bath water. We do not want to damage relationships that have been built up, but a ``do nothing'' option is not sustainable—certainly not in my community. 
 Although, broadly, the ports and fishing industries support the report's conclusions, we must proceed with great sensitivity, as the Minister seems determined to do as the Bill nears Report. The Bill undoubtedly benefits marine conservation but, as I have said, the legislation must develop through a thorough review of all present regimes, rather than adding just one more designation to a fragmented and piecemeal approach. I understand that the Minister is already focusing on the real concerns that the ports and the fisheries industries are bringing to my attention, but for the record I ask him continue to do so. We want a proposal to emerge from the process that is a significant component of the marine nursery stewardship report, and I understand that the Prime Minister has already committed the Government to achieving that aim by the target date of March 2002. 
 With those brief words, I shall sit down and listen carefully to what the Minister has to say.

Paddy Tipping: My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby and the hon. Member for St. Ives have made some important points and I am pleased to follow them, although I do so with some hesitation. They both represent constituencies with big fishery interests, whereas the only fishing that takes place in Nottinghamshire is in lakes and streams. My hon. Friend talked about bringing together warring factions, and the hon. Gentleman spoke of the commonality of fishing and conservation interests that is now emerging. He was right to say that they are two sides of the same coin, and we must pursue that argument in clause 1. Clause 1 is the Bill's core in respect of those interests, but also in terms of energy interests, as has been said today and on Second Reading.
 In keeping with my hon. Friends' comments on fishing, I want to argue that energy, conservation and extraction interests are not in conflict but compatible with the Bill. I listened carefully to the Minister, who said that he will reflect on the matter and introduce changes later in our proceedings, but we should remember that this is a live and real issue. For example, PowerGen, the second biggest wind power generator, is producing green energy in alliance with the World Wildlife Fund. Energy interests must persuade customers that they are acting in a responsible and, so far as possible, sustainable way, and such partnerships reflect that need. I appreciate that gas and oil interests and the wind power lobby have concerns about the Bill, but if carefully worked it could help them as well, as it defines the area of coastline where problems could occur. It prohibits nothing, but it flags up possible concerns. 
 I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Gale, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Uxbridge. I thank the Minister, who has taken a close interest in the Bill, for all the work that he has undertaken so far. There remain concerns and conflicts, but with careful thought and discussion of the kind that has already taken place, the various interests can be brought together so that we can achieve both extraction and conservation. If we can do that, we will have a Bill that focuses on sustainability, and of which we can be proud.

Michael Meacher: We have listened to a range of comments that strike me as reasonable, fair and balanced. They reflect the goodwill on both sides of the Committee, acknowledging that there are different interests but recognising that the polarisation that used to exist has been replaced by greater understanding.
 As the hon. Member for Uxbridge said, clause 1 is the core of the Bill and lays the groundwork for the rest of it. I have several reservations, and he may not be surprised to learn that they relate particularly to the stipulation of a duty rather than a power for conservation agencies to notify sites. I should prefer to see a duty replaced by a power. I realise that the hon. Gentleman is keen to include the word ``duty'' because it is more compelling, and in a sense he is right. However, as he acknowledged, a power would ensure that sites that require to be notified will be top of the list and the rest will be more optional. 
 Let me turn the argument on its head and say that it is absolutely right to give priority to the identification and designation of European marine sites and to allow time for the necessary criteria and scientific information to be gathered in respect of other sites. The hon. Gentleman used the word ``optional'', which reflects the use of the word ``may'' in the clause. I certainly do not regard this as an optional matter, but it is a matter of prioritisation. I am keen that all marine sites that should properly be designated are designated, but it is reasonable to ensure that the most important ones are designated first. 
 Given that knowledge about marine species and habitats is still relatively undeveloped, and given that the Bill should be designed to protect conservation hotspots and to add value, not to duplicate existing designations, it would be wise to introduce a requirement for conservation agencies to agree the criteria for site selection with the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales. That is in line with what happens in respect of terrestrial SSSIs, and it would enable us to work with the agencies to reach a better understanding of the features that merit designation, the likely size of sites and the likely future programme for designation. 
 I shall deal with the points that were raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Scarborough and Whitby and for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) and the hon. Member for St. Ives. Nowadays, there is a greater understanding that the sea is multi-functional. It serves many different purposes, which can be conflicting, but if we are sensible enough to have a dialogue and to listen to each other, those different interests can be made a great deal more compatible—even if ultimately not fully compatible. I am anxious to pursue that agenda for shared understanding through a dialogue in which differences of view are openly and transparently put on the table and contrary arguments are fully heeded. That is a good way to proceed where there is potential conflict—it is of course the basis of our debates in the House of Commons, although that may not be a good precedent.

Jon Owen Jones: Does the Minister agree that after 25 years in which scientists have calculated maximum sustainable yields for fish stocks and in which the fishing lobby, supported by politicians, have negotiated on those yields, our fish stocks have been enormously reduced to the current crisis point and it has finally dawned on the various interests that when one has calculated a maximum sustainable yield, one must stick to it?

Michael Meacher: I do not want to get drawn into the problems of the common fisheries policy or discussions between scientists and the fishing industry. I agree that there is a fundamental incompatibility between what the two are seeking to do. Unfortunately, there is no final arbiter, such as the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales, who sits down with the parties, listens, takes account of views and reaches a decision. Under the common fisheries policy, quite apart from rogue vessels, or rogue states who take advantage by overfishing—which, as we know, has catastrophic consequences—no final basis for arbitration and adjudication exists.
 I think that the situation is different here. Dialogue is worth pursuing because it has already made a measure of progress. I accept that the ports, fishing industry, offshore oil and gas industry and possibly some of the sporting interest groups will never be in total agreement. However, we should go as far as we can to try to find compatibility. As Minister for the Environment, I have a special interest and am concerned to see that the marine environment is properly conserved. It is extremely unwise for a commercial, or any other, interest to pursue exploitation of the marine environment that could cause irreparable damage; the same argument applies to fishing stocks. 
 I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby that it is important not to regard the Bill as simply tacking another piece of jigsaw into a complicated mosaic and that we should try to pursue marine conservation in the round. It is a complex matter. One reason why the Government want more time to think about it is to ensure that what we propose will be integrated into regulation in a sensible and fruitful fashion, and will not cause future problems. 
 The hon. Member for Ceredigion asked for time for consultation. The Bill may not be debated on Report for some time, but I am anxious that the Government produce proposals early and allow plenty of opportunity to consult the relevant interests. It is important that the Government do not seek to use their position to enforce a view other than one that is the best compromise or coalescence of different interests. That is my objective. 
 As I explained earlier, overlapping sites are also problematic and, as with many other issues here, require further consideration. Our useful debate has highlighted that. We need to consider those problems before I can suggest sensible and practical alternatives. The Government will certainly reflect on what has been said in this Committee and I will give the clause further thought and table amendments at the next stage to address concerns and to ensure that the Bill is securely drafted.

John Randall: I should like to address a couple of matters raised by hon. Members. I am grateful to the hon. Member for St. Ives, and others, for pointing out how things have changed; that there is now constructive dialogue between different interests. I hope that that has been reflected in what a single Member of Parliament can achieve by consulting with the various interest groups. I am a little disappointed that a constituent of the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby thought that we had not fully taken on board sensitivities, because I am well aware of the travails in the fishing industries.

Lawrie Quinn: I was not at the meeting so I cannot give a verbatim record of it, but the key point put to me was, as the Minister pointed out, the failure to recognise the difficulty with the emerging science and the cost of effective research. The fishing industry is on its knees and the failure to recognise the immense potential cost to an industry on its knees was the main concern. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could elaborate on how the Bill would deal with that concern.

John Randall: I shall return to the point about fisheries.
 The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) referred to a duty and a power, and I have my rebuttal ready. However, the Minister said that we would return to that, so a detailed debate now might not be helpful. The difference between paragraphs (1)(a) and (b) reflects a concern expressed at the consultation and in particular the National Assembly for Wales. I have some interesting figures that show how wonderful and rich the Welsh coastline is, and I congratulate Welsh Members on looking after it so well. It may be slightly off the beam, but I would like to add my voice to the suggestion that perhaps the new Danish Government should take a more constructive view of the issue of sand eels and not overfish them. 
 The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby raised genuine worries on behalf of the fishing industry in general and not just within his constituency. I come from a business background and I certainly do not want the Bill to make life more difficult than necessary in a business or commercial environment. I recognise the sensitivities of the industry and since Second Reading I have tried to meet many of the interest groups. My door is almost always open and, although it may be more appropriate for them to go to other doors at this stage, I am happy to speak to those groups. As the Committee moves forward, they should perhaps speak to other people as we consider redrafting the clause. 
 I have an inland constituency in which the fishing interest is limited to a canal and one or two gravel pits. However, fishing is of great national importance, and the industry has had a rough time. 
 It is not my job to tell the Government how to spend their money—it would be unwise to do so—but during my discussions it became apparent that the sea fisheries committees have been doing an excellent job. However, they are under-resourced and if new powers or duties come their way under the Bill, I would not want them to be more under-resourced. I want to flag that up. 
 The Minister is taking a helpful attitude. My interest and the interest at which the Bill is directed is the environment, but I recognise that that must not exclude other legitimate interests. That would have a negative effect and would not be in the best interests of environmentalists. Having started to work together, we do not want barriers to rise. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Roger Gale: I have recognised that clause 1 contains the substance of the Bill and further recognise that hon. Members did not have the opportunity to raise some of the issues that might have been raised during a debate on a programme resolution. For that reason, I have permitted a fairly wide-ranging debate on clause 1. That leniency stops now.
 Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 - Competent marine authorities: duties

John Randall: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 26, after `body', insert—
`(ii) wait until the expiry of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of consultation referred to in subsection (2)(a)(i) before deciding to undertake or give consent, permission or other authorisation;'.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 4, in page 3, line 27, leave out `account of' and insert `into account'.

John Randall: Amendment No. 3 provides a definite cut-off period within which English Nature or the Countryside Council for Wales should provide any requested advice, if they have views that they wish to be taken into account. The Bill requires competent marine authorities to consult those bodies before carrying out or permitting others to carry out operations likely to damage a marine site of special interest. Several bodies that I consulted after Second Reading, including the ports and fishing interests, expressed concern that that might cause an unspecified delay, because the Bill defined no period within which English Nature or CCW must respond to the request for advice.
 The equivalent sections, 28H and 28I, of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 define a period within which conservation agencies must respond to such requests. Amendment No. 3 provides for a period of 28 days within which English Nature and CCW must respond to a request for advice on operations that might damage the site. If they do not respond within that period, the competent marine authority may proceed without further delay. 
 Amendment No. 4 brings the wording of the clause in line with the existing Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. When a competent marine authority wishes to carry out, or permit others to carry out, activity likely to damage a marine site of special interest, it must seek the advice of the appropriate nature conservation body and take account of any written advice received. 
 During a meeting of the UK Offshore Operators Association it was pointed out to me that a similar provision in the 1981 Act contained the wording ``take into account'' rather than ``take account of''. The amendment replicates the wording of section 28I(5) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The amendment would ensure that the competent marine authority took into account advice from appropriate conservation bodies as well as considerations such as Government policy, social implications or commercial needs before designating a marine site of special interest.

Michael Meacher: It is essential to give organisations with an advisory function clear target periods within which to provide advice. Without a clear time frame, there could be unacceptable delays to the determination of authorisations and consents, and the hon. Member for Ceredigion rightly drew attention to that. I am pleased, therefore, that the hon. Member for Uxbridge has, through amendment No. 3, made the time period consistent with that for similar activities within sites of special scientific interest.
 We are not convinced, however, that there is a need for amendment No. 4. I listened to the hon. Gentleman's explanation about the slight change of wording making the clause consistent with the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, but in our view that does not have any practical effect. The hon. Gentleman did not say that it did, merely that it would bring it into line with the terminology in the earlier Act. 
 For marine sites of special interest to work, competent marine authorities should normally notify the conservation agencies when they intend to carry out or permit the carrying out of operations likely to damage MSSIs—an acronym that will no doubt enter the English language. Such authorities would take account of any advice that conservation agencies might provide about operations notified to them, and they would give such advice due consideration. Whichever wording is used, it is not a material point, and we are agreed on the point of substance. This is a key clause in ensuring that the Bill's conservation objectives and the socio-economic interests that operate in marine areas are brought together so that a balanced consideration of all issues surrounding the authorisation of consents can take place. 
 It is vital that the views of the conservation agencies are sought when operations that are likely to damage the special features of a site are being considered. That will give an opportunity for competent marine authorities to consider any likely damage to a site by activities that they have authorised. I am pleased that the clause accepts the principle that competent marine authorities should have the discretion to set aside advice from conservation agencies about operations affecting marine sites, but that is what we expect when we use phrases such as ``take account of'' or ``take into account''. The way in which such legislation is drafted by convention in statute does not mean that it is merely cosmetic; it means giving full, adequate and proper consideration, whatever the final decision may be. 
 The Government are concerned that, leaving aside the time limit for conservation agencies to respond, the proposed amendment does not address other Government concerns, which I shall briefly—taking account of your stricture, Mr. Gale—set out. It must be made clear which body takes responsibility for assessing whether an activity is likely to damage a feature for which a site was designated, and how such activities would be identified. 
 The amendment does not allow for the possibility of emergency action that might damage marine sites, on which it would be impossible to obtain advice from conservation agencies. These are reasonable points that must be addressed. They might be covered by the conservation statement for the site required by clause 1(4), but we should like more time to draw a firm conclusion about whether that would be an appropriate mechanism, or whether something else is needed. 
 As I have outlined, we agree with much of what the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Uxbridge are trying to achieve. However, we have other concerns about the clause that are not covered by those amendments. On that basis, I am happy to take on board the hon. Gentleman's views about the time limit for the conservation agencies' advice, and I will table a suitable amendment to address both his and our concerns. With that assurance, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be willing to withdraw the amendment.

John Randall: I am grateful to the Minister who has made some reasonable points. I am certainly not a lawyer, and phrases such as ``take account of'' or ``take into account'' are not matters on which I would regard myself as competent to judge. I shall therefore take the opinion of those people who have greater competence than me. Was the Minister asking me to withdraw both amendments, or just the amendment on taking ``account of''?

Michael Meacher: I have said that I am happy to accept the 28 days. The hon. Gentleman made a generous comment about lawyers having superior knowledge. One of my few virtues is that I am not a lawyer, which is something that does not make a scrap of difference. We want to table new amendments to meet the points that I have spelt out. My concern is that the gaps be filled.

John Randall: With that in mind, and given that we shall have many other opportunities to amend the Bill, I should like to withdraw both amendments.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Roger Gale: I am satisfied that hon. Members have had the opportunity to discuss all matters arising from this narrow clause, so I do not propose—

Andrew George: On a point of order, Mr. Gale, I wish to raise one narrow point on the clause that I would like the Minister to bear in mind if he is to table amendments.

Michael Meacher: I trust that the hon. Gentleman will be able to convince me.
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Andrew George: My local sea fisheries committee has drawn my attention to this clause. Sea fisheries committees already have to work within the consultation arrangements in Section 28(1) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 and Regulation 48 of the Conservation (Natural , &c.) Regulations 1994. This clause adds another consultation process. The hon. Member for Uxbridge made a broader point about the resources available to sea fisheries committees to work within these new regimes. I would appreciate it if the Minister would revise the clause to take that into account and to dovetail the consultation processes as far as possible.

Michael Meacher: I take note of that point. It is important that we do not suffer from ``consultationitis''. If I can find a way of dovetailing the processes I shall be happy to do so.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 - Management schemes

John Randall: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in clause 4, page 4, line 2, leave out
`, in consultation with the appropriate nature conservation body,'.

Roger Gale: With this we may discuss the following amendments: No. 7, in clause 4, page 4, line 5, after `exercised', insert
`as far as is reasonably practicable and consistent with the proper exercise of their functions,'.
 No. 6, in clause 4, page 4, line 6, at end insert— 
`(1A) When establishing a management scheme under subsection (1), the relevant marine authorities shall consult— 
 (a) the appropriate nature conservation body; 
 (b) every competent marine authority that has functions in relation to the marine area for which the management scheme is to be established who in their opinion will be affected by the management scheme; and 
 (c) as far as is reasonably practicable— 
 (i) any holder of a property right; 
 (ii) any holder of statutory right of any kind; and 
 (iii) anyone who carries out an activity that already has consent, is licensed or permitted 
 in relation to any of the marine area for which a management scheme is to be established.'.

John Randall: These amendments propose to widen consultation to ensure that the views of those with functions, property rights and other rights, including fishing rights, are sought by the relevant marine authority when establishing the management scheme. Relevant marine authorities may establish a management scheme for a marine site of special interest. Where the relevant marine authority is a body other than English Nature or the Countryside Council for Wales, those authorities must be consulted. Consultation with interested bodies after Second Reading revealed that users of the marine environment were concerned that as the Bill stood there was no way for them to be consulted. Furthermore, competent marine authorities consenting to or permitting activities within marine sites of special interest are not consulted. That is an oversight, as it is through the management schemes and the exercise of relevant marine authorities' existing powers that such users' interests might be affected. Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 will ensure that all those with property and other rights in relation to the MSSIs are consulted, so far as is reasonably practicable, on the development of a management scheme for a marine site of special interest.
 Amendment No. 7 would ensure that under a marine site of special interest management scheme, relevant marine authorities exercised their functions as far as reasonably practical to further conservation. The Bill allows them to establish a management scheme and its function should be exercised to secure the consultation objectives of the site. In consultation after Second Reading, various interests pointed out that this gave primacy to nature conservation over all other interests. There is no scope in the Bill to balance conservation with other interests. Even the most strictly protected European marine sites do not have that level of protection. 
 Furthermore, as the Bill is drafted, relevant marine authorities have to achieve site conservation objectives no matter what. I hope that the amendment addresses this concern. Instead of relevant marine authorities having to achieve the objectives of the site, it requires them to take reasonable steps which are consistent with their other functions and duties. Therefore, they are required to do everything that they reasonably can to conserve the site, but that requirement is not at the expense of all other interests or without regard to cost. The fishing interests, among others, placed particular emphasis on that.

Simon Thomas: I want to raise a point—for the attention of both the hon. Member for Uxbridge and the Minister—about amendment No. 7.
 The hon. Member for Uxbridge has attempted to cast the exercise of the responsible bodies' functions wider than just the environment, as he put it, to take account of the proper exercise of their functions. The Countryside Council for Wales, acting under the National Assembly for Wales, must operate under the Assembly's overarching principle of a duty of sustainable development. Sustainable development, which brings together, as the hon. Gentleman will know, social, economic and environmental factors, is an all-encompassing policy already established at the CCW. 
 It would be useful if the Minister could examine the relevant aspect of the amendment, or of any amendment that he might table, and take into account the fact that in Wales at least, because the sustainable development framework is already established, the CCW is, de facto, already asked to behave in the way specified—although the amendment may still be applicable to England.

Andrew George: I support the hon. Member for Uxbridge and welcome amendment No. 7, which would alter the effect of the word ``secure'' in clause 4(1). During my consultations with them, the sea fisheries committees asked how they could be expected to secure conservation objectives when other factors, outside the responsible body's control, exist. The amendment, or something like it, specifying that the functions should be exercised in a manner consistent with the conservation objectives, seems more appropriate and workable.

Michael Meacher: Amendment No. 6 and the consequential amendment No. 5 are intended, as the hon. Member for Uxbridge said, to ensure that all parties affected by a management scheme for a marine site have an opportunity of a say in its establishment. We wholly endorse that principle. The amendment would mean that Government Departments that were competent marine authorities were consulted about the establishment of such schemes.
 It is essential that Government Departments have the option of being consulted about the establishment of management schemes and that they should be notified once a scheme is established. That would allow management schemes to take proper account of the functions carried out by all competent marine authorities in relation to the conservation objectives of the site. In addition, the authors of a scheme would of course consult other interests, such as recreational bodies, before it was finalised. 
 I am pleased that the hon. Member for Uxbridge has tabled amendment No. 7. I understand that the desirability of the amendment was brought to his attention in one of his many meetings with interested parties on his Bill. I pay tribute to his efforts to take account of the many interests in the marine environment. That was exactly the way in which the Bill needed to be approached. 
 While working within a management scheme for the conservation of a marine site of special interest, relevant marine authorities must be allowed to carry out their duties and functions. Of course, where it is practicable and reasonable to do so, those functions should be carried out in a manner that will further the conservation of the feature for which the site is designated. 
 Amendment No. 7 uses the wording of clause 3(1) in relation to the duties of competent marine authorities. I have listened to what the hon. Gentleman said and I am all for consistency, but the two clauses differ in some ways. Further consideration must be given to the inconsistency between the duties placed on relevant and competent marine authorities in relation to their general duties on sites and their duties within management schemes for sites. That is a relatively small point, but we would like to give it some further consideration. It does not affect the material substance of the Bill. 
 I assure the hon. Member for Uxbridge that we will submit an amendment to the clause that pursues in full the principle of consultation and endeavours to meet the hon. Gentleman's and our concerns about the operation of management schemes. On that basis, I hope that he feels able to withdraw the amendment.

John Randall: We have had a useful debate, after which there seems to be little real disagreement. I agree with the hon. Member for Ceredigion that sustainable development is an important principle, and I hope that it will apply throughout the entire marine environment. Protected sites are part of that—protection will contribute to sustainable development.
 I accept the Minister's assurances that there is little disagreement, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Paddy Tipping: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 4, line 9, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
`(3) Any marine area may not be subject to both a management scheme for a European marine site and a management scheme for a marine site of special protection.'.
 This small amendment would clarify the Bill. Subsection (2) clearly states: 
``Only one management scheme may be made for each marine site of special interest.''
 Subsection (3) extends and clarifies that, but allows for one opportunity, which the amendment would put right, for a site to be part of a European maritime site under the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 when the site has been established but no management plan exists. It is conceivable that a site could be designated and a management plan produced under this legislation, and that, subsequently, a management plan could be introduced under European legislation. That would be in no one's interest. The amendment would make the clause as tight as possible, although I accept that further drafting may be necessary.

Simon Thomas: I shall make a point for the Minister regarding the possibility of two management plans existing for the same site. If the Bill is enacted, what guidance will be issued to English Nature or the Countryside Council for Wales over which of the conflicting management plans should take precedence? My understanding of the habitats directive and the management plans that flow from it for marine special areas conservation is that a definite process of management planning has been established. It flows either directly from the European directive or from guidelines.
 Clause 7 names the bodies involved in the management process, but the outline of that process is widely drawn. I am a little concerned that nature conservation agencies may be at a loss to know which processes apply to which part of the marine environment. I believe that the European habitats directive should drive the process, because it is comprehensive and contains a thorough management plan. When such a process is put into place in any area of the marine environment, this legislation will, de facto, have been met. My argument would, however, have to be discussed further on Report and explored thoroughly with the two main conservation agencies in England and Wales.

Michael Meacher: I assume that the amendment was tabled to overcome the concerns of interested sectors, such as aggregates and fishing, that there will be different management schemes for sites of national and European interest in the same area. My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood will be pleased to know that we have much sympathy for what he is trying to achieve, and he is right to raise the issue. The hon. Member for Ceredigion also made a fair point.
 There is a potential for overlaps between MSSIs and areas designated as European sites under the EC wild birds directive and the EC habitats and species directive. The potential for overlaps with international designations could also increase, with bodies such as the Ospar commission undertaking initiatives. That is not necessarily bad, but it is essential that the management of sites is co-ordinated and does not cause conflicts. My hon. Friend has tried to achieve that by ensuring that only one management scheme will cover a marine site, which looks like an easy solution. Management schemes for European sites are set up to manage features of European interest, and we must consider whether such schemes could be amended to include the features of MSSIs that have been notified. In some cases, the site of the European feature might be managed to the detriment of the national feature, and we must give further thought to tackling that issue. 
 As the hon. Member for Ceredigion said, if there is to be one management system, one must establish which it is to be. We must consider how it will be given priority and how it will link with the interests of the MSSI. We must also consider the potential for MSSIs to overlap with coastal SSSIs, whether that is desirable and, if so, how such sites would be managed. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood has correctly identified a problem and has proposed what appears, prima facie, to be a reasonable solution. I should like more time to reflect on how to overcome the difficulties that have been identified. I should like to see whether we can table an amendment later to meet hon. Members' concerns.

Andrew Robathan: I am not an expert on the number of European sites. Will the Minister give us an idea of how many sites would result in overlaps and conflicts?

Michael Meacher: I cannot give a figure off the top of my head, but I might manage to work a fuller and clearer answer into a reply during our discussions.
 I hope that my hon. Friend will be happy to withdraw the amendment on the basis of my remarks. He has drawn attention to an important problem and has suggested a reasonable solution. We shall propose what we think is the best solution.

Paddy Tipping: I am grateful to the Minister and to the hon. Member for Ceredigion for their comments. There is clearly a problem, and it has been acknowledged that the amendment provides a possible solution. Although I tabled it, I am not entirely confident that it takes the right approach. The Minister has offered to examine it and to suggest a better solution. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Simon Thomas: I want to highlight a possible conflict between clauses 3 and 4. I am uncertain as to how the competent authorities will use the management scheme. The rest of the Bill suggests that any management scheme would be discussed and agreed with all the stakeholders. All the relevant authorities would be involved. There may be one lead authority—I presume that it would be the Countryside Council for Wales, and English Nature for England—but everyone would be equal nevertheless. As the Minister will know from the way in which work is done on the habitats directive and special areas of conservation, the modern approach is that everyone around the table feels equal. Although one body may take the lead, everyone has a stake.
 Clause 3 would place an extra duty on bodies to consult on additional activities taking place in an area that could threaten it. In what circumstances would the need for that be triggered if a management plan dealt with management of the area? What activities would not be dealt with in the management plan? Would there be some sort of steering group for the management plan? Clause 4 is important, as the management plans will manage the sites. How does that fit in with clause 3? If clause 4 is to stand part of the Bill, will that point be considered before Report?

Michael Meacher: I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Uxbridge wants to respond to those points.
Mr. Randall indicated dissent.

Michael Meacher: So far as I understand it, the purpose of clause 3 is to give the competent marine authorities a duty—I dispute the use of that word—to further the conservation of the marine environment. Clause 3(2) states that in so doing they shall undertake consultation and take account of the appropriate advice. Once they have done so, a management scheme will be drawn up.
 Clause 4 requires the drawing up of the management scheme by the competent marine authorities to have been gone through thoroughly, so clause 3 leads to that provision. Clause 4 would ensure that all the stakeholders had been fully consulted and felt that they had ownership of the scheme, as the hon. Member for Ceredigion said. I do not think that there is an inconsistency; one clause follows from the other.

Simon Thomas: The Minister is helping me to understand. Once the management scheme had been set up under clause 4, would the processes in clause 3 no longer be needed?

Michael Meacher: The role of clause 3 is to ensure that the process leading up to the creation of the management scheme is properly undertaken. Once the scheme is in place, the process in clause 3 will have been completed. The important requirement then will be to ensure that the management scheme is fully and properly adhered to and monitored, and that all parties commit to its objectives. Clause 3 would be in the past at that point, to an extent, but it would be resurrected as further sites came forward for designation.

John Randall: I have a couple of points to make, as we could consider the subject further. I tell the hon. Member for Ceredigion that not all MSSIs would necessarily have a management scheme—the Bill says ``may''. Clause 4(3) accounts for the fact that some activities may be covered by a management scheme. However, I shall consider the matter again to ensure that the Bill has got it absolutely right.
 Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 - Directions in relation to management scheme

Andrew George: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 4, line 22, at the beginning insert
`Without prejudice to subsection (1),'.
 The purpose of my minor drafting amendment is to clarify what I imagine was intended, which may need to be emphasised in the light of the previous debate. I want to clarify the fact that the reasons for which directions could be made include, but would not be restricted to, the reasons given in the three paragraphs of subsection (2). Subsection (1) proposes to provide the Secretary of State and the National Assembly of Wales with the power to direct 
``relevant marine authorities . . . as to the establishment of a management scheme for a marine site of special interest.''
 Subsection (2) sets out some of the matters for which the power of direction may be used. However, these are not the only matters under consideration. The amendment is designed to clarify the matters set out in subsection (2). However, it does not prejudice the possibility of there being other matters for which the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales may see fit to make a direction in relation to management schemes for marine sites of special interest.

Michael Meacher: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman said about the purpose of the amendment. However, we believe that it is unnecessary because the clause already achieves the outcome he wants. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to ensure that directions by the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales for the establishment of a management scheme for a marine site include, but are not restricted to, the matters listed in subsection (2). By including the phrase ``directions may in particular'', the clause already gives the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales the discretion to issue directions for reasons not included in the list in subsection (2). For the record, that is consistent with regulation 35(2) of the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994, which deals with management schemes for the marine Natura 2000 sites. We want to maintain that consistency. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is satisfied that what he wants has already been achieved, and that he will withdraw the amendment.

Andrew George: I am grateful to the Minister for the clarification. I am glad that the issue has been raised so that that clarification can be put on the record to prevent any future confusion over the wording. I apologise for being obliged to leave the Committee in a moment, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 6 to 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New clause 1 - Expenses

`There shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament— 
 (a) any expenses of the Secretary of State under this Act; and 
 (b) any increase attributable to this Act of the sums payable under any other Act.'.
 Brought up, and read the First time.

John Randall: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
 The new clause is the result of the money resolution that the Minister moved last week, which we want to include in the Bill. On that occasion, the Minister spoke much more eloquently than I could have done and I defer to him now.

Michael Meacher: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. In our view, considerable further work is required to assess the Bill's regulatory impact on both the private and public sectors. We shall consider the impact of any costs, but the Government are happy to accept the new clause.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 2 - Ministerial guidance as respects

`.—(1) The Secretary of State (as regards England) and the National Assembly for Wales (as regards Wales) shall from time to time prepare codes. 
 (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), section 33 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (ministerial guidance as respects marine areas of special interest) applies, where references to sections 28 to 32 should be read as sections 1 to 6 of this Act.'.
 Brought up, and read the First time.

John Randall: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
 This matter has already been touched upon. The purpose of the new clause is to require the Secretary of State in England and the National Assembly in Wales to develop codes of guidance relating to the implementation of the Act. 
 During my consultations with interested parties after Second Reading, one problem that arose frequently was that people were unclear about the implications of the Bill, especially in relation to the selection of MSSIs. It was always the intention to develop site selection guidelines, but they did not appear in the Bill. Section 33 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 requires the Minister, in consultation with others, to develop codes of guidance. Such codes should provide guidance to those exercising functions under the SSSI provisions of the Act and to those who might be affected by those provisions. 
 The codes are subject to parliamentary approval. The new clause would apply section 33 of the 1981 Act to the provisions of this Bill. It would require the Secretary of State in England and the National Assembly in Wales to publish statutory codes of guidance to advise and guide both competent marine authorities and those affected by the Bill. Although it is not explicitly stated, such codes could include agreed guidelines and thresholds for the selection of MSSIs.

Michael Meacher: As the hon. Gentleman has just stated, the new clause requires the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales to prepare codes, and applies section 33 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Although we would look favourably on a need to produce guidance on the operation of the Bill, we consider that repeating the provisions of section 33 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act is unnecessary, and a simple provision requiring the Secretary of State to issue guidance would suffice.
 Guidance issued under section 33 cannot be easily revised, because it has to go through the unusual process of approval and debate by both Houses of Parliament. The modern practice—under a modernising Government, I hope—is to undertake full public consultation before laying such codes for annulment. If we propose an amendment relating to guidance, we are likely to opt for a simpler procedure. Where guidance on a Bill such as this is issued by Ministers, I can assure the Committee, not least after all the discussion that we have had this morning, that a draft would be issued only following full public consultation, including consultation with the conservation agencies and other Government Departments. On that basis, I hope that the amendment can be withdrawn.

Simon Thomas: I thank the Minister and am grateful for what he has said, because I was becoming rather concerned that the code of guidance for the National Assembly for Wales would have to be set by the two Houses of this Parliament. The course that he has set out seems to be very appropriate. Will he say something about the present codes for the habitat directive sites, Natura sites and others? Does he intend to codify the codes?

Roger Gale: Order. That is not strictly relevant to the new clause. However, if the Minister wishes to respond, I shall allow him to do so.

Michael Meacher: The best thing is to say that I shall look into that, because it is a technical question. Our intention is not to go in for general codification, but I shall consider the general point made by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and write to him.
 I, too, crave your indulgence, Mr. Gale, to respond to a question that was raised on an earlier clause by the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), because this might be the last time that I speak in this Committee. He asked a fair question about the degree of overlap. It is difficult to judge without full assessment of the potential number of MSSIs. We expect a limited overlap with European marine sites, because those are usually designated to protect species and habitats different from those likely to be covered by MSSIs. However, the potential for overlap with coastal SSSIs is greater and requires more consideration. 
 We are concerned about the question of overlap and want to limit the complexity involved. We shall give full consideration to avoiding the problems that can arise from overlap, but we think that they will be limited. I am grateful for your indulgence, Mr. Gale.

John Randall: I am not surprised to be given such an answer, and I am happy to withdraw the motion.
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Roger Gale: I thank members of the Committee for the courtesy and good humour with which they have conducted today's deliberations. On their behalf, I thank all the Officers of the House for their assistance, without which our work would be difficult, if not impossible.
 Bill, as amended, to be reported. 
 Committee rose at nine minutes past Twelve o'clock.